This is the PCT test site. Please do not circulate links to this site. Findings from this site should not be assumed to be reliable without specific agreement from the PCT team. Please use www.pct.bike instead.

User Manual for the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT)

The material here was developed during 2016 and 2017 for use in training. To request more information or provide feedback, please email us at pct@pct.bike or report issues on our GitHub issue tracker. The PCT also has a blog, which contains further information on some of the topics featured in the case studies and FAQs. Contributions to GitHub, the blog or other parts of the project are welcome.

Additional FAQs

Hilliness is certainly an important predictor of cycling levels in England, with the probability of cycling a trip falling steadily as the hilliness of the local area increases (Figure 1.1). Overall, people in the tenth of the population in the flattest areas are three times more likely to cycle a trip than the tenth of people in the hilliest areas (2.8% trips cycled vs 0.8%).

Figure 1.1: Proportion of trips cycled in England, according to the hilliness of the local area

It is also true that the Netherlands is a flatter country than England. As illustrated in Figure 1.2, around 80% of people in the Netherlands live in areas that are below the 20th centile for local hilliness in England. Under 4% of people in the Netherlands in live in areas that are above the 50th centile for hilliness in England. Note that in both England and the Netherlands the local area is defined using administrative areas designed to contain populations of around 1500 individuals.

Figure 1.2: Distribution of the population of the Netherlands in terms of the hilliness of their local area, relative to the tenths defined in England.

We estimated what would happen to cycling levels in England if England had the same flat topography as the Netherlands (but the existing infrastructure, travel patterns and cycling cultures). We did this by re-weighting the cycle mode share shown in Figure 1.1 according to the Dutch distribution of hilliness shown in Figure 1.2 i.e. giving much more weight to the cycling levels of those living in the flattest parts of England than those living in the hilliest parts. In this “Dutch levels of hilliness” scenario, the proportion of trips cycled in England rose from 1.7% to 2.6%. This is still ten times lower than the mode share of 26.7% actually observed in the Netherlands. So although hilliness does explain a small part of why the English cycle less than the Dutch, it still leaves a massive difference unexplained. Or to put it another way, only if cycling levels in England were increased ten-fold would “the Netherlands is flatter” become a convincing excuse for England lagging behind.

People in the Netherlands make 26.7% of trips by bicycle, fifteen times higher than the figure of 1.7% in England. In addition, cycling in England is skewed towards younger, male cyclists (Figure 2.1A). By contrast in the Netherlands cycling remains common into older age, and women are in fact slightly more likely to cycle than men (Figure 2.1B). This means that the difference between England and the Netherlands is particularly large for women and older people (Figure 2.2). For example, whereas the cycle mode share is ‘only’ six times higher in the Netherlands than in England for men in their thirties, it is over 20 times higher for women in their thirties or men in their seventies and eighties. For women in their seventies and eighties, the cycle mode share is over 60 times higher in the Netherlands than in England.

Figure 2.1: Proportion of trips cycled in England and Netherlands stratified by age and sex

Figure 2.2: Ratio of cycle mode share in the Netherlands versus England, stratified by age and sex

In both countries, the probability of cycling falls rapidly as trip distance increases. Interestingly, the shape of this distance decay relationship is generally similar between the two countries (Figure 2.3). In other words, the Dutch achieve their higher cycling levels by boosting the relative probability that trips of all distances will be made by bicycle. This indicates that the potential to increase cycling levels in England exists for longer trips (≥ 10km) as well as for the shorter trips that are more often targeted in cycling interventions, perhaps through improved infrastructure or a more widespread adoption of electric cycles. The only noticeable difference between England and the Netherlands is that the Dutch are relatively more likely to cycle short trips ≤ 1.5 miles than the English. Plausibly, this reflects trips being cycled in the Netherlands that are more often walked in England.

Figure 2.3: ‘Distance decay’ curves in England and the Netherlands, showing the probability that a trip of a given distance will be cycled relative to a trip of 2 miles

We give users the option of seeing either the ‘fast’ or the ‘fast’ and the ‘quieter’ routes on the map (see Figure 3.1 below). Which might cyclists use? These routes come from the journey planner Cyclestreets.net, which helps people plan their cycling route. CycleStreets.net shows three types of route, ‘fast’, ‘balanced’, and ‘quiet’. Many cyclists currently choose to take a quieter route at the cost of extra time because often the shortest route involves sharing with motor traffic on busy roads. However, even the quieter routes can still involve negotiating busy roads at times. The aim of the PCT is not to predict exactly where people are currently cycling. Rather we are trying to prioritise where to put new infrastructure.

For many people, cycling with busy traffic is hugely off-putting. A systematic review carried out for this project found this particularly puts off women, and probably also older people and those riding with children (Aldred et al 2017).

So are the quieter routes for those groups, and the fast routes for others? No, because this project also shows that propensity to cycle declines more rapidly with distance for women and older people. If a quieter route creates a detour such that a 2 mile trip becomes effectively a 3 mile trip, younger men’s propensity to cycle the route will decrease 11%. But for younger women, the decline is 19%, and for older adults (60+) the propensity would decrease by 35%.

This hits women’s and older men’s cycling twice: they are less likely than men to want to cycle the fast route, but then are also less likely to be willing to cycle an effectively longer alternative route. It’s likely to be part of the reason for disparities in cycling by age and gender.

Improving direct routes will reduce the impact of these safety and time disincentives to utility cycling. So while a good proportion of current cyclists may use the ‘quieter’ route, a big increase in capacity will likely necessitate substantial improvements to the ‘fast’ route, which will then carry many more riders. It is for these reasons that we have chosen to present the ‘fast’ as the most first choice for creating good cycling routes.

About the Propensity to Cycle Tool

This is the online home of the open source transport planning system, the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT).The PCT is released under the Affero GPL: it is free to use, copy and modify, e.g. to create versions for new cities and states. Please cite the journal article Lovelace et al. (2017) if you use the PCT in your work.

With many thanks also to former PCT team members Alvaro Ullrich and Ilan Fridman Rojas

Aim and scope of the PCT

The PCT was designed to assist transport planners and policy makers to prioritise investments and interventions to promote cycling.The PCT answers the question: 'where is cycling currently common and where does cycling have the greatest potential to grow?'. The PCT can be used at different scales.

First, the PCT is a strategic planning tool. Different visons of the future are represented through various scenarios of change,including the Department for Transport’s draft Cycling Delivery Plan target to double cycling in a decade and the more ambitious ‘Go Dutch’ scenario, whereby cycling levels are reached in England (allowing for English hilliness and trip distances). By showing what the rate of cycling could feasibly look like in different parts of cities and regions, and illustrating the associated increase in cycle use on the road network, the PCT should inform policies that seek a wider shift towards sustainable transport.

Second, the PCT can also be used at a smaller scale. The scenario level of commuter cycling along a particular road can be used to estimate future mode share for cycling on that corridor. This can be compared with current allocation of space to different modes, and used to consider re -allocation from less sustainable modes to cater for cycling growth. In other cases, low current or potential flows may indicate a barrier, such as a major road or rail line, causing severance and lengthening trips. This could be addressed through new infrastructure such as a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

Central both to strategic and smaller-scale use is the question of where to prioritise high quality cycling infrastructure of sufficient capacity for a planned growth in cycling (Aldred et al 2017).

In summary the PCT is a planning support system to improve cycling provision at many levels from regions to specific points on the road network. For further information on the thinking underlying the tool's design, and the methodology used to create it, please see Lovelace et al. (2017). You can get updates about the tool on, the PCT's blog series. To view the underlying source code, please visit Github/npct.

Funding & Acknowledgements

The work was initially funded by the English Department for Transport (DfT) to create the National Propensity to Cycle Tool for England (2015-2017). The Welsh government then funded the extension to Wales in 2018. We would also like to thank the EPSRC and ESRC for Impact Acceleration funding (2016-2017).

We would like to thank Brook Lyndhurst for facilitating Phase 1 of the DfT contract and Atkins for facilitating Phase 2.

We would also like to acknowledge the support and encouragement we have had from Shane Snow, who initially commissioned and championed the PCT, and from Philipp Thiessen, who in September 2016 took over in leading on DfT involvement in the PCT.

Finally, we would like to thank CycleStreets for providing data on routes.

Liability

The PCT uses transparent and tested methods on the best available data. However we cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused.

Contact Us

For more information or questions, please contact us at: pct@pct.bike.